One of the most frustrating things for reporters is this. When we ask chip vendors about the performance of their apps processors for smartphones, for example, their answers tend to be specific numbers based on the benchmarking results of CPU and GPu; or they would respond: "Well, it all depends on use-case scenarios."
I'd love to have some answers based on system-level benchmarks -- a tool that measures the performance of a whole phone, based on specifics that consumers care about.
Benchmarks should be renamed to Benchmarketing. (Did I just coin a new term?). I have been involved with becnhmarks since the PREP benchmarking days for FPGAs in the late 1980s and the early 1990s which were gamesmanship at best. Benchmarketing - that's what it is - your mileage may vary ...
The reality is, though, no matter how skeptical and cynical you might get with benchmarketing, benchmark results are often touted and marketed aggressively by those who have money, power and vested interest.
Like the "benchmarketing" term. (I noticed BDTI is marketing its benchmarket study in this article--marketing benchmarketing.) It will be interesting to see the results of the study. I'd like to compare BDTI results to Consumer Reports'.
Structured in a manner that will emphasize the strengths of their offerings?
It reminds me of the comment "The nice thing about standards is there's so many of them!"
I don't have a problem with BDTI being funded by Qualcomm to do this, as long as they are open about their methodology, what they are measuring, and what conclusions might be drawn from it. Someone has to pay the costs of developing such a thing,
Once they have something they think works, the next step is to pitch it to the appropriate industry consortium as the standard way you measure what the benchmarks track. Then you make popcorn and sit back and watch the fun.